Elites in Latin America have found themselves at the center of a crisis of legitimation when their societies underwent democratic transitions and market reforms in the late 1980s. This study explores the ideological reconstruction the Brazilian entrepreneurial class had to undertake to respond to the social conflicts that threatened the stability of market capitalism and liberal democracy in a country marked by gross economic inequalities. These elite’s investment in corporate social responsibility programs resulted in the dissemination of a complex discourse that legitimates profit-seeking and advocates the collective benefits of market competition in a cultural context of personalistic clientelism and suspicion towards the morality of profit. We explore how entrepreneurs handle this contradiction between the entrepreneurial ethos and the received tradition in their day-to by looking look further at how this legacy plays out in their perception of their standing relative to other fractions of their social class, to the remainder of society, and to state elites.

In interviews, empresários reveal a sense of distinction between a patrimonial variant of capitalism which is considered outdated and untenable, and their self-perception as rational managers who put the interests of the firm first. The categories administrador (manager) and dono (owner) serve as archetypes of vanguard and rearguard conceptions of what privilege entails and of the proper role of a capitalist in a developing country. Entrepreneurs embrace an egalitarian, meritocratic ideology deriving both from their career paths and the corporate governance standards to which they must subscribe. They put these beliefs into practice in the business environment as well as via institutions that speak the language of a positive-sum game between the pursuit of self-interest and the delivery of public goods. The new etiquette of privilege has been successful at replacing the personalistic world-view in the way businesspersons present their mission in society, deal with conflict and enforce authority. Practices of patronage among other elites, however, limit the institutional reach of this rational, individualistic disposition.